It had become one of the more divisive issues in the community, but despite that or perhaps because of that, there was one thing both sides agreed on Tuesday night – the council needed to go forward with the proposal to fluoridate the city’s water supply at the October 1, 2013, Davis City Council meeting.
City staff, perhaps sensing the need to cool down discussions, had recommended delaying the item until after the completion of the water project.
Staff states that they “feel” that “it would be appropriate to move Council consideration of whether to add fluoridation until after the DWWSP is constructed and has been operating at least a year. This will allow the Council to accurately assess the initial and ongoing cost for fluoridation that would be borne by the ratepayers.”
On June 27, 2013, the City of Davis Water Advisory Committee (WAC) voted to recommend to the City Council to add fluoride to the drinking water. As staff notes, during the course of the WAC deliberation, information regarding the range of potential capital, operations and maintenance cost were discussed.
Staff writes, “The estimations of capital cost to add fluoride to the City’s deep wells varies greatly depending on each well site and the type of chemical that is used to achieve fluoridation.”
As staff noted at the time, “In order to evaluate the cost of adding fluoride, two sources of information were used. One was 2009 cost estimates from Sacramento County and the other was a cost estimate for two of our deep wells, completed on June 18, 2013.”
Based on that, staff calculated, “The cost to add fluoride to our deep wells is estimated to be between $92,000 and $454,900 per well site. So to equip all six deep wells, the total cost would be between $837,000 and $2,067,400.”
However, putting off the decision, in a way, forces the worst of all worlds. As we noted, the problem is that, as long as the issue of fluoridation hangs over the water project, the water project itself – facing lawsuits and a possible initiative – might be in trouble.
While the two sides agreed on nothing substantive on Tuesday night, they agreed on moving forward with the proposal as scheduled.
“I do not agree with anything the previous speakers have said except one item, and that’s that you should go forward and consider this and make your decision now,” said Alan Pryor at Tuesday’s meeting. Mr. Pryor has been among the more outspoken opponents of the project.
Meanwhile, Tia Will, a local obstetrician/gynecologist as well as member of the Vanguard Editorial Board, stated, “It’s nice to see that Alan and I agree on something in this matter, and that’s that I’m very strongly in favor of you sticking with the October timeline for making a decision.”
Putting off the decision until after the project would simply allow the decision to fester and it might influence the water supply project, as we noted earlier this week.
As “Medwoman” noted, “It seems to me that your argument, with which I happen to agree, that delaying the decision has risks, ignores the fact that the surface water project only becomes ‘safer’ if the council decides against fluoridation.”
Medwoman is completely correct here. That may well end up being a factor that leads the council to oppose fluoridation.
Dan Wolk has publicly supported the project – but thus far he is the only one.
In a piece that appeared in the Davis Enterprise and was co-authored by Julie Gallelo, the executive director of First 5 Yolo, and Art Pimentel, the former mayor of Woodland, Mr. Wolk and others argued, “Since the mid-20th century, community water fluoridation – the careful adjustment of naturally occurring fluoride levels in water to strengthen tooth enamel and reduce dental decay – has proved to be an effective preventative public health measure, reducing tooth decay by about 25 percent over a lifetime, per the American Dental Association.”
“Across the nation, more than 70 percent of people utilize community fluoridation, according to the Centers for Disease Control,” they write. “In California, fluoridation is mandated by state law, if funds are available. And, right next door, the citizens of West Sacramento, Vacaville and Sacramento, to name a few, enjoy the benefits of fluoridated water every day. Pediatricians in Davis prescribe fluoride drops to parents to give to their children.”
“Today, Yolo County’s public health community – dentists, pediatricians, public health officials and every major, local health care provider – is united in support of community water fluoridation in Davis and Woodland,” they continue. “These are the folks who are on the front lines of combating dental disease. They know what policies work and what do not.”
They argue, as well, that “cost should not be a reason to reject fluoridation.”
But cost is not the only factor.
Brett Lee has looked into alternative delivery methods, including the idea of mobile dental units to treat disadvantaged kids, an idea that at least two other members of the council have privately told me has merit.
There are critical questions that have emerged, not only about the cost-effectiveness of the issue, but about its efficiency. How much are we spending for a product to be added to water that will largely return to the water supply, only to need to be removed before discharge?
How much fluoride will actually get on the teeth of those children who most need it?
We have not seen sufficient studies to suggest an answer. We do have the comparative studies that show that, in communities with fluoridation and those without fluoridated water, the decay rates are basically the same and follow nearly identical trendlines.
Finally, there are concerns about how safe adding fluoridation to the drinking water really is. And, while it is true that two-thirds of all communities have fluoridated drinking water, a number have recently discontinued the practice.
Many of the children most in need of fluoridation are either consuming beverages that have sugar, or bottled water rather than tap water.
The bottom line, it appears, for several councilmembers we spoke to privately is that this issue is contentious, there is no certainty that it will solve the problems that face the community and have rightly been brought forward, and it poses a risk to the surface water project.
In short, we do not believe there are three votes in favor of fluoridation at this time.
However, this conversation has not been fruitless. There appears to be a real commitment by council to deal with the issue of underprivileged children and tooth decay, and it would not surprise us to see one of the alternative proposals being examined more fully by council.
Of course, no one other than Dan Wolk and Brett Lee have made these comments public and we will have to see how the October 1, 2013, meeting unfolds.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]We do have the comparative studies that show that in communities with fluoridation and those without fluoridated water, the decay rates are basically the same and follow nearly identical trendlines.[/quote]
Much re posting and commenting on the graphs showing the identical trend lines for communities with and without fluoridation has been made primarily by those attempting to prove that water fluoridation does not work. What these graphs actually demonstrate, is that multiple fluoridation strategies will work. Fluoride works whether it is administered by direct application by skilled providers ( the most expensive prevention strategy),
by OTC products, by drops, or by ingestion through a number of means including water through the ultimate direct application medium, one’s own saliva.
The problem that we have on the local level is that despite this issue having been raised again and again in our community, there has not been the political or economic will to address the important health care issue of dental decay to date. I have seen one proposal from one council member, Brett Lee, attempting to address this issue through voluntary donation, and a counter proposal that we tax to provide alternative dental care. My concerns about these alternatives are:
1) What is the estimated cost to cover how many people ? Fluoridation of the water supply covers everyone who chooses to consume the water. And there is no mandate to do so.
2) Who is going to implement this alternative since the people most responsible for provision of the care, namely Communicare have already stated their preference based on their known limitations ?
3) What is the guarantee that such a program will be continued, even if piloted ?
I know that the time is short. However, I think an honest assessment of this issue would include a rigorous examination of the limitations of the proposed alternatives, or the development of more robust alternatives by the members of the CC prior to a vote.
[quote]Many of the children most in need of fluoridate are either consuming beverages that have sugar or bottled rather than tap water.[/quote]
It’s sad the sugared beverages are often cheaper then milk or water. Maybe the government could divert some of the money it spends on corn subsidies and put it into dental care and education.
[quote]Fluoride treatment for kids who don’t have fluoride in their water is covered under the Affordable Care Act[/quote]
Growth Izzue – so you are solidly in support of the Affordable Care Act?
Ryan, not at all, but that’s besides the point. If Obamacare is going to provide free fluoride for children in areas where the water is not fluoridated why are we even talking about it as an issue?
[quote] If Obamacare is going to provide free fluoride for children in areas where the water is not fluoridated why are we even talking about it as an issue?[/quote]
Because it’s not just about cost, it’s about ease of access. (i.e. getting kids to the doctor, getting prescriptions filled, remember to give children fluoride).
[quote]Because it’s not just about cost, it’s about ease of access. (i.e. getting kids to the doctor, getting prescriptions filled, remember to give children fluoride). [/quote]
Oh, you mean parents acting responsibly. So would you also want us to provide healthy meals to each child’s home and to go into their homes and make sure that the parents are feeding them properly?
“Oh, you mean parents acting responsibly. So would you also want us to provide healthy meals to each child’s home and to go into their homes and make sure that the parents are feeding them properly?”
Two points:
Unfortunately not all parents do not act responsibly, and children pay the price. As a society I think we should so what we can to help these kids
You implied in your argument that getting fluoride to kids was just about the cost. I’m stating that there are more factors to consider (wether you agree with them or not) then just cost. .
Medwoman wrote:
[quote]Much re posting and commenting on the graphs showing the identical trend lines for communities with and without fluoridation has been made primarily by those attempting to prove that water fluoridation does not work. What these graphs actually demonstrate, is that multiple fluoridation strategies will work. Fluoride works whether it is administered by direct application by skilled providers ( the most expensive prevention strategy),
by OTC products, by drops, or by ingestion through a number of means including water through the ultimate direct application medium, one’s own saliva.[/quote]
No, these graphs demonstrate that water fluoridation is not the cause of decreasing decay rates. That is all that they demonstrate. That’s it. It is inaccurate to state that “What these graphs actually demonstrate, is that multiple fluoridation strategies will work.” These graphs do not demonstrate that at all.
Would you two indicate what charts you’re discussion. The one I remember that compared other countries was used to show that lots of places without added water fluoridation have just fine teeth, thank you, but slid over the fact that alternative application methods were being used.
[quote]Fluoride treatment for kids who don’t have fluoride in their water is covered under the Affordable Care Act[/quote]
It’s also covered under Medi-Cal. What’s your point?
” So would you also want us to provide healthy meals to each child’s home and to go into their homes and make sure that the parents are feeding them properly?”
You are aware at Title 1 schools they provide kids with two meals. I’ve read numerous stories in other areas where those are often the only meals kids get.
[quote]Would you two indicate what charts you’re discussion. The one I remember that compared other countries was used to show that lots of places without added water fluoridation have just fine teeth, thank you, but slid over the fact that alternative application methods were being used. [/quote]
Here is my Vanguard piece regarding those graphs:[url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7309:letter-from-dr-terri-leonard-to-wac-on-floridation&catid=60:water&Itemid=92[/url]
As I wrote in the comments section of that article, the graphs and tables are convincing evidence that systemic (ingested) fluorides, such as fluoride added to water or salt, are not the reason for the decrease in dental caries rates in industrialized nations because nations that do not add fluoride to their water or salt are experiencing the same decrease in dental caries rates as nations that do. The graphs and table beg the question as to what indeed is the real reason for the decrease in dental caries rates in industrialized nations, since this decrease is clearly not due to ingested fluoride. The data in the graphs and table indicate that water and salt fluoridation are not the reason for declining dental caries rates.
tleonard, are you saying there’s a body of scientific work out there that shows fluoridated has zero dental effect (except fluorosis)?
JS
I am out so responding is difficult. Yes those are the graphs I was referencing. And where I am is just coming from my dentist who is into part of the fluoridation group, but who does favor fluoridation.
Tleanard
We will just have to agree to disagree on what those graphs actually show.
First graph: [img]http://davismerchants.org/vanguard/who_data01.jpg[/img]
Second graph: [img]http://davismerchants.org/vanguard/who_dmft02.jpg[/img]
[quote]It’s also covered under Medi-Cal. What’s your point? [/quote]
So why are you crying for ways to fund fluoridation to the underprivileged when it’s supplied for free under both Obamacare and Medi-cal?
[quote]You are aware at Title 1 schools they provide kids with two meals. I’ve read numerous stories in other areas where those are often the only meals kids get. [/quote]
I thought we were talking about Davis here?
Yes, theses are the charts I remember. Thanks, Don.
I was curious then was what is reflected in the chart with “no water or salt fluoridation” countries. What accounts for these reductions in tooth decay? It cannot be the absence of water or salt fluoridation since there’s presumably never been fluoride added to their water or salt.
Something must be happening in Iceland, Italy, Finland, Sweden, Japan, etc., since 1970 that would account for their improving records.
I can’t imagine that it’s taken until now to “beg the question as to what indeed is the real reason for the decrease in dental caries rates in industrialized nations.” Hasn’t someone been curious enough to study what differences there have been in diets, medical care or other factors that could account for the reductions in different countries’ rates.
In any case, it is not true that these charts “indicate that water and salt fluoridation are not the reason for declining dental caries rates” in the countries that have one or the other. None of them show the cause of the declines.
I suspect there’s more to this story than we’re being led to believe.
Ryan Kelley: [quote]Growth Izzue – so you are solidly in support of the Affordable Care Act?[/quote] So in order to point out one small aspect of an incredibly overarching and complicated law you must therefore be “solidly in support” of that law? Wow.
B.Nice: [quote]Because it’s not just about cost, it’s about ease of access. (i.e. getting kids to the doctor, getting prescriptions filled, remember to give children fluoride).[/quote] That is too often the excuse for enacting sweeping legislation that affects everyone. Let’s look at the irresponsible parents/citizens and because they might make bad decisions, let’s take away the decision making powers of [b][i]everyone[/i][/b].
[quote]I thought we were talking about Davis here?[/quote]
Last year 4 Elementary schools in Davis qualified for Title I funding, Birch Lane, MME, Patwin, and North Davis.
Because Growth, I’m concerned that despite some funding availability, kids are not getting the medical attention they need.
“I thought we were talking about Davis here?”
My world doesn’t stop at the borders of Davis and there’s no reason to believe it doesn’t happen here as well.